Central Information Commission
Ishan Mata vs Indian Institute Of Science Education ... on 21 June, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/IISER/A/2023/656699
Ishan Mata ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Indian Institute Of Science
Education And Research,
Mohali ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 20.10.2023 FA : 10.11.2023 SA : 28.12.2023
CPIO : 07.11.2023 FAO : 07.12.2023 Hearing : 12.06.2024
Date of Decision: 20.06.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Kindly refer to the news article https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/phd-students-harassment- plaint-against-iiserguide-under-probe/articleshow/70198481.cms and https://web.archive.org/web/20190712075220/http://afflatus.co.in/phd- harassment-story-from-iiseri-will-destroy-your-career/ Page 1 of 6 The first news article mentions that in/around April 2019, a complaint (against supervisor) of harassment was filed by a (former) integrated Ph.D. student to the Board of Governors or PM/MHRD whose suo motu cognizance was taken by the then Director.
(i) Kindly provide a copy of
(a) the complaint,
(b) the office order (or notice/memorandum/email or other document) vide which a committee of fact-finding/inquiry/investigation was constituted,
(c) the document specifying the terms of reference and mandate of the committee
(d) the report of the fact-finding/inquiry/investigation committee,
(e) statements of witnesses, the complainant, and the accused, and all other evidence.
(ii) (a)Kindly inform whether the accused faculty was found to be guilty or not, and please provide a copy of the records specifying the penalty imposed on the accused.
(b) Kindly inform whether the penalty imposed was Minor or Major. If it was a Minor penalty, please state whether it was in the nature of Censure alone or whether the increments/promotions were affected (for definitions of Minor and Major penalties, please refer to CCS rules). Please inform the details of the penalty.
(iii) Kindly inform whether a copy of the report of the committee was furnished to the complainant or not. If yes, kindly inform the date on which it was furnished.
(iv) Kindly inform whether the complainant was informed about whether the penalty was imposed or not and the nature/quantum of penalty imposed on the accused faculty. If so, kindly inform the date on which the complainant was informed.
(v) The article in the second link refers to another Ph.D. student (of the same faculty member) who had left after completing about three years.
Page 2 of 6(a) Kindly inform whether the institute tried to identify this student, and inquire into the conduct of the faculty towards him.
(b) Please provide a copy of all the connected records.
..., etc./ other related information
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
(i) The required information cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005.
(ii) BOG of IISER Mohali had issued a strong warning to accused faculty besides prohibiting him from taking fresh Ph.D. students for two years from 17.08.2019(current semester).
(iii) The information not available.
(iv) The information not available.
(v) Please provide the details of Ph.D. student whose name is in the 2nd link.
Etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.11.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 07.12.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 28.12.2023.
5. The appellant along with Advocate N Sai Vinod, remained Present in Person and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Sandeep CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought detailed information regarding a harassment complaint filed by a PhD student against a supervisor at IISER Mohali. This included copies of the complaint, office orders, terms of reference for the inquiry committee, the inquiry report, witness statements, and evidence. The appellant emphasized the large public interest in disclosing the information, citing cases of academic bullying, Page 3 of 6 human rights violations, and the need for transparency to build trust and ensure fair inquiry processes.
The appellant highlighted several studies and surveys to emphasize the public interest in disclosing the information requested. These studies showed a high prevalence of academic bullying and its severe impact on victims' mental health. One survey found that 84% of participants experienced abusive supervision, with many victims fearing retaliation if they reported their experiences. Another study indicated that PhD students are more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety compared to the general population. Additionally, the appellant pointed out that in some cases, bullying had led to suicidal ideation and attempts among students. These studies underscored the importance of transparency in handling harassment complaints to build trust and ensure fair and unbiased inquiry processes. The appellant argued that disclosing the requested information would serve the larger public interest by exposing any potential mishandling of complaints and deterring future instances of academic bullying, thereby safeguarding the mental health and well-being of current and future students.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought in point no. 5 of the RTI Application does not come within the ambit of RTI Act as it focuses on providing the confirmation regarding whether the institute tried to identify this student and inquire into the conduct of the faculty towards him. The question is based on hypothetical facts. He further agreed to provide the information after carrying out redactions of the exempted parts severed as per Section 8 r/w Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that no relief can be given for point no. 5 where the appellant has sought information regarding student just based on a news link that would further require the CPIO to divert some resources. However, the commission also noted that information pertaining to point no. i (b), (c) & (d) which mentions the office order, documents regarding the terms of the committee and findings of the committee Page 4 of 6 along with information on Point No. ii should be provided all in accordance with Section 8 r/w Section 10(1) of the RTI Act 2005 to the appellant.
9. Based on the aforesaid observation, the CPIO is directed to provide information on Points i (b), i (c), and i (d), by providing the appellant with the office order or document constituting the fact-finding/inquiry/investigation committee, the document specifying the terms of reference and mandate of the committee, and the report of the fact- finding/inquiry/investigation committee. The CPIO is also directed to provide information on point No. ii, whether the accused faculty was found guilty and to furnish details of the penalty imposed, including whether it was a minor or major penalty, and if minor, the nature of the penalty (censure, effect on increments/promotions, etc.). However, certain parts of these documents shall be redacted to protect sensitive information as per Section 8 r/w Section 10(1) of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. severing all third party & personal information.
The said information should be shared with the Appellant, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 15 days from the receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. With these directions the appeal is disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 20.06.2024 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनल एस एस िछकारा ($रटायड) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 5 of 6 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO Indian Institute of Science Education And Research, Mohali, Sector 81, Knowledge city, P.O. Manauli, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab- 140306
2. Ishan Mata Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)